[taxesareforever]

Without any detail beyond the initial claim, I would have no means of an evaluation.

You are the one being illogical. You also are the one demanding more and more detail for any claim that goes against your theories. In your world 1+1+=2 needs evaluation to determine the accuracy of the problem. It's no wonder that so many agree that scientist findings are skewed to reflect their agenda. Sheeesh.

[Dimensio]

You are the one being illogical.

There is nothing illogical about requiring further context in order to evaluate a claim that, as given, is vague.

You also are the one demanding more and more detail for any claim that goes against your theories.

This statement is also false, and you have offered no justification for it.

In your world 1+1+=2 needs evaluation to determine the accuracy of the problem.

This is a strawman argument, and does not support any claim that you have made.